Is it time to cap house prices?

mr.broderick

m00m00 wrote: »

coke use is the fastest growing form of drug abuse in this country at the moment, due to the drop in the price and the increase in the quality.

Nobody doing acid these days?
Was rife in the early nineties round our way...Strawberries, purple om's being the tab of choice

bo_drinker

Somebody is on drugs posting this. A lot of water has gone under the bridge in our lifetimes. There is no place for it, may be on cloud cuckoo land. Full of holes. Unfortunately we do not nor never will live in an ideal world. Laughable (not sorry)

real1314

carolt wrote: »

Yet we - or you, real1314 - don't seem to regard the right to basic shelter as essential.

Erm where did I say that? it says a lot about someone's argument that they have to invent things to make it look like your view is extreme.

The thread was about capping house PRICES, not about access to shelter. The pyramid of needs starts with Food, then shelter comes afterwards.

Has anyone suggested we cap food prices on here? or that the Govt should take over food supply or that non-profit organisations should be set up to supply food at affordable prices? Govt supplies housing and non-profit orgs do too. Shelter is available to everyone in this country as an absolute FACT.

If you're not suggesting food price capping, then you're putting the cart before the horse. And why are people doing that? Because their arguments, in many cases, are not really about NEED, but about what they want to see happen to people who took a risk they didn't and made somehting out if it.

If you believe in capping, really believe in it, from a moral standpoint, then you have to start with food.

squinty

m00m00 wrote: »

far more important than capping house prices, would be a sensible attitude to social housing.

build more decent quality family sized social housing, and the demand for housing will reduce, which will bring the prices down for those who want to buy.

the mindset of this country is just wrong though with regard to housing now, it's far more concerned with avarice than shelter.

I agree entirely with m00m00 - to me a sensible atitude towards social housing would be to allow local authorities to build more - and provide social housing that is of real quality (and to bring existing stock up to the same quality).

The sad thing is that this is possible now, except that successive goverrnments have thought that local authorities are not up to the job. The current system does offer financial support to RSLs' (Housing Associations) and even private developers are able to access government funding, but local authorities are very limited to what money they can use. This year the local authorities will pay nearly £200 million more of rent payers money to government then they will recieve back from governments - in some many areas tenants pay over £1000 a year each (through their rent) to government. (This is known as negative HRA subsidy)

In efect this means that the the poorest people in society are subsidising some of the richest. this is something I feel very uncomfortable about.

This is particulalry worrying at a time where there is an 'adjustment' in the housin market. People are not able to access other types of acommodation, or are losing their homes. Local authorities should be in a position to help, but the double impact of the loss of housing through the RTB and the ongoing negative subsidy means that there are fewer and fewer local authority homes available.

Rant over, for now at least !!

bo_drinker

The poorest people in society are subsidising some of the richest...... Been happening since Adam was a boy. And always will.

Cranston_2

bo_drinker wrote: »

The poorest people in society are subsidising some of the richest...... .

Can you give a specific example?

keeprenting

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm sorry NDG, I know barristers who do (cocaine). Quite few of them, in fact.

In fact, I know one whose very pubic disbarring last year was publically blamed on drug fuelled behaviour.

I used to work at the Bar (albeit only briefly) and I don't know of any barrister who uses cocaine, although I know several bankers who do...

dopester

Cranston wrote: »

Can you give a specific example?

Don't bother. Going in to bleak economic times, with people stretched and feeling hard-done-by, the sheeple often go in to the mindset of delusional thinking and giving the blame against innocents.

It is a cry for wealth redistribution from those who put their time and energy to good use, and didn't spunk their money away. Throughout history, the victims of the delusion are usually those with something to steal.

carolt

real1314 wrote: »

Erm where did I say that? it says a lot about someone's argument that they have to invent things to make it look like your view is extreme.

The thread was about capping house PRICES, not about access to shelter. The pyramid of needs starts with Food, then shelter comes afterwards.

Has anyone suggested we cap food prices on here? or that the Govt should take over food supply or that non-profit organisations should be set up to supply food at affordable prices? Govt supplies housing and non-profit orgs do too. Shelter is available to everyone in this country as an absolute FACT.

If you're not suggesting food price capping, then you're putting the cart before the horse. And why are people doing that? Because their arguments, in many cases, are not really about NEED, but about what they want to see happen to people who took a risk they didn't and made somehting out if it.

If you believe in capping, really believe in it, from a moral standpoint, then you have to start with food.

If food prices were such that people in this country were starving, of course I would advocate food price caps! Wouldn't you? Wouldn't any sane, civilised human? Or would you rather watch your fellow human beings starve around you?

Mercifully, despite food price rises, we are not (yet) at that pass (although there certainly are parts of the world where that is the case). We are, however, in a situation, where due to lunatic house prices, many people in this country cannot afford suitable, safe accommodation for themselves and their families. Many families crammed into unsuitable housing or people who post on here about how they'd love to have children but can't afford suitable housing, so though their biological clock is ticking, they may miss out on one of life's great blessings and privileges, having children.

Very, very sad.

I certainly do not believe that the rights of some people - who simply by virtue of their age (not 'taking a risk'!!!!! - there was little risk involved for people who were able to buy at an easy 3 multiple or less) have been able to cash in on rising property prices prices - to make money outweigh the rights of EVERYONE to have a secure roof over their heads.

No idea where you get the idea that 'shelter' is available to everyone in this country 'as an absolute FACT'. Where, precisely? Would that be on overstretched council housing lists with waiting lists of often 20 years?! Or would that be paying money to a kind private landlord (such as yourself, I suspect?) to house them - no matter if they have no money left to pay for basic essentials eg food afterwards!

Don't imagine this doesn't happen. In the early days of my marriage, we fell into the category of people who earned too much to claim housing benefit, by a few hundred pounds, but equally had literally nothing left to pay for food etc after paying rent and bills. We survived with the help of family, extra jobs and debt. Several promotions on, our situation is less extreme, but I am sure there are many, many others in the situation we were once in.

Capping rental prices NOT house prices would provide a solution (as it did until the 1980's); if rentals ceased to be so profitable in cash terms, then house prices would probably fall too, as BTL would be a less profitable investment (not that it's exactly profitable at the moment!). As it is, it looks like the free market will eventually provide its own solution, in the form of the CRASH, mercifully, bringing house prices back within the reach of the priced-out generation, whilst destroying the profits of greedy 'investors' who sought to profit from others' distress.

To go back to your earlier post, I have no problem with speculation in say, gold, because no-one 'needs' gold. If you really cannot see the difference, I suggest you try sleeping outside this winter (pick a really cold night, please!), whilst holding a large nugget of gold in your pocket to cheer you up.

Then let us know if the one is equal to the other.

BTLNEWbie_3

carolt wrote: »

Capping rental prices NOT house prices would provide a solution (as it did until the 1980's); if rentals ceased to be so profitable in cash terms, then house prices would probably fall too, as BTL would be a less profitable investment (not that it's exactly profitable at the moment!).

Why should I not be able to profit from my rental income? Is it not a business like any other?